131 replies to this topic

[ACW]

cinepro, on 07 July 2010 - 04:51 PM, said:

In the Dialogue article discussing the history of this video, it is noted that the inclusion of the story of the apology was not without some consternation on the part of the Church PR department.  But they wouldn't go on the record to say that it didn't happen, so it was still included.

To avoid future consternation the Church ought to collaborate with these good brothers (Perkins and Gray) and Sis. Young and come up with something official.  I doubt it would satisfy the critics but it might help get rid of the speculations/misinformation from within the membership.  Some/too many members won't even watch Blacks in the Scriptures or Nobody Knows because they aren't put out by the Church.

[DanGB]

Amensalist, on 07 July 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

So true. Thank you for bringing some illuminating light to this. No wonder there is so much confusion both within and outside the LDS Church. I hope to find someone with some insight who can help clarify and give a better explanation than "We don't know", and what is and is not doctrine etc.



AMEN

Amen,

Dont let this board be your entire barometer of LDS culture.  IMHO I think this board will give you, at best, a flavor of the apologetic culture driven from Provo or Utah in general. I have spent my entire lfe, for the most part outside of Utah and the "Mormon Corridor" (Utah, Idaho and Arizona) and there are many who are not afraid to think outside of the group think you may see here.  

There are great people in our Church who are accepting reaching their own conclusions of our history, even though they will often reach conclusions and a concensus that most here would vehemently object to and oppose.  Even reaching the level of questioning their loyalty, church knowledge and even spirituality.  But as I see it, that's just part of a church growing up so I don't see it as  the offensive problem many here do.

Anyway, just another perspective for you to ponder about this place!

[ACW]

Awesome speech...

African Converts Without Baptism:
A Unique and Inspiring Chapter
in Church History
E. DALE LEBARON



http://speeches.byu....der.php?id=1779

Edited by ACW, 07 July 2010 - 10:31 PM.

[AtticusFinch]

wenglund, on 07 July 2010 - 08:49 PM, said:

Not only is this a transparent attempt at evasiding my point, but you have inanely resorted to stereotypes, and constructed those stereotypes out of straw. Bravo! I can't wait to see your next argumentational trick.

nice try.  But it does not fool me.  What I posted was not stereotypes but facts.  Whether it is Adam-God, Blacks, men on the moon, etc.  you run away from whatever you can;t explain or find to be silly.


Let's see, you are posting anonymously and under a fictitious name on the internet, where it is not uncommon for people to misrepresent themselves, particularly when posting anonymously, and somehow you assume it insulting for me to reasonably and benignly express reservations that you are what you clams to be. And, if that wasn't enough, you then expect me to prove otherwise? Now that some magical thinking for ya.

My profile has my real name.  So I am not posting "anonymously". You made a veiled doubting of my profession, man up and prove I am not an attorney or apologize.  Stop making excuses and dodges and do one or the other.  I heard how nice this was, and yet I see it is no different than the other board.  Mormons are not better.  You made a claim, or a veiled one...now back it up.


As a test to see if you know what you are talking about, and if you really are a lawyer as you claim, let's see if dictionary definitions for certain words are the same as the legal definitions. Let's start with the "A"'s:

Webster's defines "abet" as:

1 : to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan)
2 : to assist or support in the achievement of a purpose.

Whereas, the Law Dictionary defines it as:

"to help someone commit a crime, including helping them escape from police or plan the crime."

With your crack legal mind, were you able to detect even the slightest difference?

wow...more insults?  And no, the definitions are not really different.  I am surprised you could not see that.  True, since one deals with legal aspects, one mentions crime, but those definitions are the same...both mean to help or assist.  Nice try.

No? Well how about the definition for "Abayence":

Webster's defines it as:

1 : a lapse in succession during which there is no person in whom a title is vested
2 : temporary inactivity: suspension

The Law Dictionary defines it as:

1) n. when the owner- ship of property has not been determined. Examples include title to real property in the estate of a person who has died and there is no obvious party to receive title or there appears to be no legal owner of the property, a shipwreck while it is being determined who has the right to salvage the ship and its cargo, or a bankrupt person's property before the bankruptcy court has decided what property is available to creditors or alleged heirs. 2) legal jargon for "undetermined."

Need I go on?

Another nice try.  Both essentially mean the same thing.  You can;t see that?  The legal definition uses more words...that is what anything legal does.  But they both mean the same thing.

Did you sleep through law school? Were you not able to afford Black's Law Dictionary?

lol.....more insults?  Is this the nicer mormons people bragged about and compared the Catholic board to?  I can;t tell you how much I appreciate your insults...it proves what I said all along, that mormons were no better than anyone else and that they were not nearly as "charitable" as a few mormkns bragged.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  But, as to your comments, your post only proved what I said.  

The sad thing is, you feel the need to be dishonest and misrepresent.  I did not say all definitions were exactly the same, as you are hinting....I said "not really. There are words that are different. But usually, a definition is a definition"  Now, are there words that are different here?  Hmmm?  Are there?  Let me help you.....yes, there are words that are different.  Did I say that words were ALWAYS the same?  Hmmmm?  No, I siad "usually".  So you have proven NOTHING except either your inability to read, or your need to be dishonest in an effort to belittle others.  Not sure yet which it is.  Bottom line, I was right.  You were wrong.  Again.  Thank you.  


May I suggest that when you are allegedly preparing briefs (look that word up in the dictionary to see if means the same as it does in the law) or preparing cases for court, that you use the legal definitions rather than the dictionary definitions. It may help prevent a truncated legal career (assuming that is your profession).

May I suggest that you do less belittling and more reading......and Again, prove I am not what I said, or consider yourself to be a liar who bears false witness.  If you have the cajones to actually back up your claims, do it.  If not, I expect an apology.

Now, if you would like, I can run through a variety of other professions that utilize their own industry-specific definitions (i.e. idioms or jargon), but in doing so I am going to have to start charging you for this education.

Find the dictionary for "false prophets" and let's see what Joseph said and how it matches.  In the mea ntime, you have been proven wrong...you have been to be dishonest, and the black thing was doctrine, despite your need to run from it screaming.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by AtticusFinch, 08 July 2010 - 05:31 AM.

[wenglund]

So, Mr. Finch, as an alleged lawyer you evidently can't tell the difference between common definitions and legal definitions. That should strike confidence in the heart of your supposed clients.

But, be that as it may, I looked through your profile and couldn't find your real name. Would you be so kind as to direct my attention to where in your profile it supposedly is displayed? I can see where you didn't list an email address and witheld your gender.

And, don't you think it more than a little hypocritical to remark on my supposed lack of niceness for thinking you may be a false lawyer after you denegrate my faith by calling Joseph Smith a false prophet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chronos]

Atticus, you get a nice break. I won't let you complain to us that we aren't nice then exhibit the same behavior.

wenglund, knock it off and if there is a problem with someone's postings, please report it.

~Chronos

[Jaybear]

wenglund, on 08 July 2010 - 06:58 AM, said:

And, don't you think it more than a little hypocritical to remark on my supposed lack of niceness for thinking you may be a false lawyer after you denegrate my faith by calling Joseph Smith a false prophet?

"Supposed?"

Lets see, you repeatedly called him a liar, which is against the board rules for nonmembers.  You make snarky comments:  "Did you sleep through law school?, Were you not able to afford Black's Law Dictionary? "...should strike confidence in the heart of your supposed clients."

All this because he dared look to the dictionary to support his opinion that the Priesthood ban was "doctrine" not "policy."

If you believe the ban originated from God, I don't understand why does it matter so much to you whether its characterized as "policy" or "doctrine"?   I was under the impression that some apologists characterized it as policy, as a means of distancing the ban from God.  Can you explain why its so important to you.

And so that I better understand where you are comming from, are these policy or doctrine, and which originate from God or man:

1.  Ban on women holding priesthood.
2.  Tying temple recommend to WOW.
3.  Changes made to the temple ceremony
4.  suspension of the earthly practice of plural marriage.
5.  Requiring a sustaining vote for Monson as your prophet.

Thanks, in advance.

[Chronos]

Jaybear, the situation between wenglund and AtticusFitch has been addressed. It was handled in the manner it was due to other factors, not just solely on this one thread. If you have questions about other topics, please open a new thread.

~Chronos

[Jaybear]

Chronos, on 08 July 2010 - 08:07 AM, said:

If you have questions about other topics, please open a new thread.

~Chronos[/color]

?????  I am not trying to derail the thread.  Nor open a new discussion.

The OP ask specifically if the Priesthood ban was doctrine?  That is the express topic of this thread.

Wade insists it was policy not doctrine. I genuinely don't understand the distinction, and I am not alone.  So I asked the questions in good faith to see if Wade could articulate some intellectual consistency in this distinction, as applied to other practices that seem to me to fall within the same cracks.  

You are correct though, pointing out Wade's misconduct in repeatedly calling another poster was unnecessary, as you had already dealt with Wade's misconduct, when you told him to knock it off.  My apologies.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

To give you an outside example of the difference. We are required by doctrine to meet on the Sabbath. Policy is that we, in my Ward, to meet from 11 AM to 2 PM. As we have 3 Wards meeting in the same building we rotate the schedule to everyone an equal changes at a desired schedule. That was a change in Policy. I easily remember when Priesthood was early morning, then Sunday School in mid morning, then Sacrament Meeting in the Evening.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 08 July 2010 - 09:18 AM.

[Jaybear]

thesometimesaint, on 08 July 2010 - 09:18 AM, said:

Jaybear:

To give you an outside example of the difference. We are required by doctrine to meet on the Sabbath. Policy is that we, in my Ward, to meet from 11 AM to 2 PM. As we have 3 Wards meeting in the same building we rotate the schedule to everyone an equal changes at a desired schedule. That was a change in Policy. I easily remember when Priesthood was early morning, then Sunday School in mid morning, then Sacrament Meeting in the Evening.

That example would lead me to conclude that policy is set at the local level and can change without divine intervention.  That does not support Wade insistence that the ban was policy.  

On this line of thought, is the position that the Sabbath is on Sunday, not the 7th day...Saturday,  policy or doctrine?

[Hestia]

Automatic generated message


This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Closed due to multiple complaints

Thank you,
Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board Staff